obtained on behalfof Ms.Williams. Respondent requested that Ms

Transcription

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
JOSEPH PRESTON HARRIS,
Comm. No. 2013PR000114
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 1136100.
AMENDED ANSWER
COUNT I
{Alleged Neglect in Employment Discrimination Matter - Angela Williams)
1.
On or about July 20, 2007, Angela Williams consulted with Respondent about
representing her in an employment discrimination claim against her former employer,
Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Williams
for a contingency fee wherein Respondent's fee would be one-third of any award Respondent
obtained on behalf of Ms.Williams. Respondent requested that Ms.Williams advance $1,000
toward his anticipated costs.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that on or about July 20, 2007, he agreed to represent
Angela Williams in connection with an employment discrimination claim
against Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation. Respondent denies that
he agreed to represent Ms. Williams on a contingent-fee basis. Respondent
denies that he requested that Ms. Williams advance $1,000 toward his
anticipated costs.
2.
At no time did Respondent set forth his contingent fee agreement with Ms.
Williams in writing, despite several requests by Ms. Williams that he do so.
ANSWER:
3.
Respondent denies that he had a contingent fee agreement with Ms. Williams,
and he therefore denies all of the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
On October 6, 2008, Respondent filed an employment discrimination
complaint on behalf of Ms. Williams in the United States District Court of Illinois, Eastern
Division, entitled Angela D. Williams v.Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, et al, case
number 08CV5679. The matter was assigned to Judge Joan B. Gottschall with designated
Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow.
ANSWER:
4.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
On November 25, 2008, the defendants in Williams v. Advocate Health and
Hospitals Corporation, et al., filed their answers, defenses, and motions to dismiss certain
allegations in case number 08CV5679.
ANSWER:
5.
On December 10, 2008, Judge Gottschall held a status conference in case
number 08CV5679 wherein the Judge entered a discovery schedule order requiring that
parties exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on or before January 15, 2009, and set a new
status hearing date of January 21,2009.
ANSWER:
6.
On January 21, 2009, Respondent failed to appear, on behalf of Ms. Williams,
before Judge Gottschall in case number 08CV5679. Judge Gottschall rescheduled the status
hearing for February 4,2009, and indicated that the failure of plaintiff, or plaintiffs counsel,
to appear in the matter on February 4, 2009 would result in an order dismissing Ms.
Williams' case for want of prosecution.
ANSWER:
7.
Respondent admits that he did not appear for the January 21,2009 status date.
Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was inexperienced
in the use of the PACER/ECFsystem at the time that he filed Ms.Williams' case;
and that as a result, he was not able to keep apprised of the status dates at
which an appearance was required.
On February 4, 2009, Respondent appeared, on behalf of Ms. Williams, before
Judge Gottschall in case number 08CV5679. The Judge entered an order requiring
Respondent to comply with defendants' discovery requests by March 2, 2009. Additionally,
Judge Gotschall set forth a detailed discovery schedule, with deadlines for compliance, and
June 10,2009 as the next status hearing date.
ANSWER:
8.
From March 2009 through April 2009, Ms. Williams placed several telephone
calls to Respondent requesting status updates in her case number 08CV5679. Respondent
failed to return any of Ms. Williams' calls regarding the status of her pending matter.
ANSWER:
9.
Respondent admits that Ms.Williams contacted him regarding her case during
March and April 2009. Respondent denies the remainder of the allegations
contained in paragraph 8.
On March 2,2009, Respondent contacted counsel for defendants, Anna Hartog,
and informed her that he was unable to obey the Judge's discovery order deadline of March
2,2009 but agreed to comply with the defendant's discovery requests by March 4,2009.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that on March 2,2009, he had a discussion with Ms. Hartog
in which he requested the brief extension of time described in paragraph 9.
Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9.
10.
At no time on or before March 4, 2009 did Respondent comply with
defendants' discovery requests. Instead, Respondent notified Ms. Hartog that he would
comply with outstanding discovery requests by March 6,2009. At no time on or before March
6,2009 did Respondent comply with the court's February 4,2009 discovery order.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he requested a brief further extension of time to
comply with Ms. Hartog's discovery requests. Further answering, Respondent
affirmatively states that as of March 6, 2009, he was not in possession of
sufficient information to assemble a response to Ms. Hartog's discovery
requests. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 10.
11.
On March 9,2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a
motion to compel discovery, based upon Respondent's failure to comply with the court
ordered discovery schedule in case number 08CV5679. The motion was scheduled for
hearing before Judge Gottschall on March 12,2009.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11. Further
answering, Respondent denies that he received notice of the defendants'
motion.
12.
On March 12, 2009, neither Respondent nor Plaintiff appeared before Judge
Gottschall in case number 08 CV 5679. Judge Gottschall granted the defendants' motion to
compel discovery and required Plaintiff respond to outstanding discovery by March 26,
2009. The Judge also awarded defense counsel's fees and costs for the filing and preparation
of the motion to compel and set a next status hearing date of April 1, 2009. Judge Gottschall
indicated that the failure of Plaintiff to appear either in person or by counsel on the status
date of April 1, 2009, would result in the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. On
March 31,2009, Defendants filed a petition for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,700.
ANSWER:
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he had not received notice of
the defendants' motion or the March 12, 2009 hearing date; and that as of
March 12, 2009, he believed, incorrectly, that he was not required to appear
for a status date in Ms. Williams' case until June 10,2009.
13.
OnApril 1,2009, neither Respondent nor Ms. Williams appeared before Judge
Gottschall in case number 08 CV 5679. The Judge rescheduled the status hearing for April 8,
2009.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 08CV5679 on April
1, 2009. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was not
aware of the April 1, 2009 date, and that as of April 1, 2009, he believed,
incorrectly, that he was not required to appear for a status date in Ms.
Williams' case until June 10, 2009.
14.
On April 8,2009, neither Respondent nor Ms. Williams appeared before Judge
Gottschall in case number 08 CV 5679. Judge Gottschall entered orders dismissing the matter
for want of prosecution and directing Ms. Williams and Respondent to pay defense attorneys'
costs in the amount of $2,700.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 08CV5679 on April
8, 2009, and that Judge Gottschall entered the orders described in paragraph
14. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was not aware
of the April 8, 2009 date, and that as of April 8, 2009, he believed, incorrectly,
that he was not required to appear for a status date in Ms. Williams' case until
June 10,2009.
15.
On each and every status date in case number 08CV5679, Judge Gotschall's
clerk mailed notice of the Judge's orders to Respondent. Respondent received the notices of
orders sent by the Judge's clerk for each and every status date in case number 08CV5679.
ANSWER:
Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 15, and
therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies any remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16.
Shortly after the April 8, 2009 dismissal of her lawsuit in case number
08CV5679, Ms. Williams telephoned Judge Gottschall's clerk to determine the status of her
lawsuit. At that time, the Judge's clerk informed Ms. Williams that on April 8, 2009,
Respondent was not present in court and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution.
ANSWER:
Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a belief as to the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16, and therefore denies
those allegations. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he
informed Ms. Williams of the dismissal of the case shortly after he himself
learned of it.
17.
In April 2009, after learning that her lawsuit was dismissed for want of
prosecution, Ms. Williams made repeated telephone calls to Respondent to discuss the
dismissal of her lawsuit Respondent did not immediately return Ms. Williams' telephone
calls.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that in April 2009, Ms. Williams contacted him regarding
her case. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 17.
18.
In May 2009, Ms. Williams spoke with Respondent via telephone at which time
Respondent informed Ms. Williams that he was aware that case number 08CV5679 was
dismissed for want of prosecution, and would be filing an appeal.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he had a conversation with Ms. Williams in April or
May 2009 in which he informed her that case number 08CV5679 had been
dismissed for want of prosecution. Respondent denies any remaining
19.
At no time after case number 08CV5679 was dismissed for want of
prosecution on April 8, 2009, did Respondent file an appeal, motion to reconsider or take
any other action on behalf of Ms. Williams in case number 08CV5679.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not file an appeal or take any other action on
behalf of Ms. Williams in case number 08CV5679. Respondent denies any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19. Further answering,
Respondent states that after April 8,2009, he discussed with Ms. Williams the
merits of her case and her options with regard to any continued proceedings.
During that discussion, Respondent recommended against initiating or
pursuing any further proceedings, and Ms. Williams accepted that advice and
accordingly determined not to proceed further.
20.
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a.
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in
b.
representing a client, Ms. Williams, by conduct including
c.
failing to prosecute the employment discrimination
lawsuit filed on behalf of Ms. Williams, 08CV5679, in
violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (1990);
d.
failure to keep a client, Ms. Williams, reasonably
informed regarding the status of the employment
discrimination lawsuit, 08CV5679, in violation of Rule
1.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(1990);
e.
failure to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing,
in the employment discrimination matter, 08CV5679, in
violation of Rule 1.5(c) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (1990); and
f.
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice, by failure to comply with court rules and orders
in the employment discrimination matter, 08CV5679,
and delaying the resolution of Ms. Williams' matter, in
violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (1990).
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 20.
COUNT II
{AllegedConflict ofInterest - Neal and Cathleen Green)
21.
Prior to 200 7, Harold Richmond consulted Respondent on an estate matter. At
that time, Respondent declined to represent Mr. Richmond in that matter as Respondent
suspected Mr. Richmond fabricated a deed.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he was retained by a person named Howard
Richmond several years ago in relation to a probate matter. Respondent also
admits that he eventually suspected that Howard Richmond may have
participated in engaging in dishonest conduct with respect to a deed, and so
he discontinued that representation of Howard Richmond. Respondent denies
any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21.
22.
In 2007, Mr. Richmond discussed his interest in acquiring property to fund a
new ministry with Neal Green. Mr. Green was interested in Mr. Richmond's proposition as
both he and Mr. Richmond were ministers. Mr. Richmond discussed the possibility of
purchasing an eight-flat building located in Chicago at 4401-07 W. Jackson Boulevard,
hereinafter "West Jackson property," which was owned by Mr. Green and his wife, Cathleen.
The West Jackson property had been damaged in a fire.
ANSWER:
or falsity of the allegations contained in any allegations relating to the content
of conversations between Howard Richmond and Rev. Neal Green, because he
was not a party to those discussions. Therefore, Respondent denies the
8
23.
At the time of the discussions between Mr. Green and Mr. Richmond, Mr. Green
was 73 years of age, had a third-grade education and modest liquid assets. The Green's assets
consisted of several properties acquired by Mr. Green during his lifetime which, in addition
to the West Jackson property, included three multiple-family buildings and the home he
shared with his wife, Cathleen.
ANSWER:
Respondent was not a party to of any discussions between Rev. Neal Green
and Howard Richmond in 2007, and he was therefore not aware, at that time,
of any of the facts alleged in paragraph 23 regarding Rev. Green's condition
and assets. Respondent therefore denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 23.
24.
In 2007, Mr. Richmond referred the Greens to Respondent for legal
representation in several matters, including a landlord-tenant dispute, a contempt of court
proceeding against Ms. Green, and a dispute with the Green's insurer following the fire at the
West Jackson property. Respondent agreed to represent the Greens in all of their legal
matters.
ANSWER:
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 that Howard Richmond
referred the Greens to Respondent, and he therefore denies those allegations.
25.
After retaining Respondent, the Greens provided the Respondent with their
financial, real estate and legal documents. As a result, Respondent was aware of the extent
of the Green's debt and real estate holdings, including the West Jackson property. The West
Jackson property was the only property unencumbered by a mortgage and, for that reason;
[sic] the Greens were reluctant to sell the West Jackson property.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25.
26.
Mr. Richmond and Respondent entered into an agreement such that Mr.
Richmond would pay any legal fees Respondent incurred in representing the Greens, should
the Greens be unable to pay for Respondent's legal services.
ANSWER:
27.
Later in 2007, Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Richmond in his purchase
of the Greens West Jackson property for a purchase price of $300,000. At that time, the
property was valued at between $600,000 and $700,000.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he agreed to represent Howard Richmond in
connection with the West Jackson property. Respondent denies any remaining
28.
At all times alleged in Count II of the Complaint, as a result of their ongoing
attorney-client relationship, the Greens expected Respondent to exercise his independent
professional judgment for the Green's protection.
ANSWER:
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 concerning the state of
mind of the Greens. To the extent an answer is possible or required regarding
those allegations, Respondent denies those allegations. Respondent denies
29.
By reason of the trust and confidence that the Greens placed in Respondent as
a result of the attorney-client relationship, Respondent stood in a position of a fiduciary to
the Greens. As such, Respondent owed the Greens the fiduciary duties attendant to the
attorney-client relationship, including the duty to perform the requested services with the
highest degree of honesty, fidelity, and good faith, a duty of undivided loyalty, a duty to avoid
placing himself in a position where his interests would conflict with the interests of his client,
a former client or a third party, and a duty of care, including but not limited to a duty to
10
ascertain if the actions he was taking on behalf of the Greens in relation to the sale of the
West Jackson property accurately reflected the Green's desires and protected their legal
interests.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 29 alleges legal conclusions which are the province of the Hearing
Panel to draw. Therefore, Respondent should not be required to answer that
paragraph. To the extent an answer is possible or required, Respondent denies
the allegations contained in paragraph 29.
30.
At no time did Respondent take any steps to ascertain whether the actions he
took on behalf of the Green's sale of the West Jackson property accurately reflected the
Green's desires or protected their legal interests.
ANSWER:
31.
At no time did Respondent advise the Greens that he was simultaneously
representing Mr. Richmond in relation to the purchase of the West Jackson property that the
interests of Mr. Richmond and the Green's interests could be adverse, that his representation
of one party could be limited by his responsibilities to the other party.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not advise the Greens in the manner described
in paragraph 31. Further answering, Respondent states that he did not so
advise the Greens because he only represented Howard Richmond in
connection with the the West Jackson property. Respondent denies any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31.
32.
On January 29,2007, the closing on the West Jackson property occurred, with
all parties present Respondent prepared all documents relating to the sale and purchase of
the West Jackson property. While Mr. Richmond agreed to a purchase price of $300,000, he
failed to convey a check to the Greens at the closing.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph
32. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second and third
sentences of paragraph 32.
11
33.
The Greens were owed $269,388.32 at closing but have never received any
consideration for the sale of the West Jackson property to Mr. Richmond.
ANSWER:
34.
Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 33.
a.
failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the clients, Neal and Cathleen Green,
to make informed decisions about the representation, by
conduct including failing to explain the risks and benefits
of the real estate transaction, in violation of Rule 1.4(b)
of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and
b.
representation of multiple clients in a single matter, a
real estate transaction, by conduct including failure to
make full disclosure of the implications of common
representation of Neal and Cathleen Green as well as
Harold Richmond, and the risks involved, in violation of
Rule 1.7(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(1990).
ANSWER:
COUNT III
{Alleged Neglect in Foreclosure Matter - Ali and Amina Sheikhani)
35.
On or about October 20, 2011, Ali and Amina Sheikhani consulted with
Respondent about their defense of a foreclosure action, pending in the Circuit Court of Will
County, entitled Wells Fargo v. Amina Sheikhani, etal., case number 10CH3113. Respondent
agreed to represent the Sheikani's in the foreclosure action for a fee of $3500. Mr. Sheikhani
advised Respondent that October 26,2011 was the next court date in the foreclosure action.
Respondent advised the Sheikhanis that their court appearance was unnecessary as he
would appear on their behalf in the foreclosure action.
12
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first, second, and third
sentences of paragraph 35, except that he denies that he consulted with both
Ali and Amina Sheikhani. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states
that he met with Ali Sheikhani on or about October 20, 2011. Respondent
denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 35.
Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he told Ali Sheikhani
that he would not file an appearance and answer on the Sheikhanis' behalf in
case number 10CH3113 unless and until he received full payment of the
$3,500 fee.
36.
On October 20,2011, pursuant to the agreement between and the Sheikhanis,
Ali Sheikhani paid Respondent $250 in cash toward Respondent's fee. Mr. Sheikhani agreed
to pay Respondent monthly installments of $200 toward Respondent's fee. Respondent
agreed to provide the Sheikhanis with a copy of Respondent's appearance and answer to the
foreclosure complaint in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 36, except that he
denies that the amount of the agreed-upon monthly installments was $200.
Further answering, Respondent states that the amount of the agreed-upon
monthly installments was $250.
37.
On October 26,2011, Respondent failed to appear in case number 10CH3113.
The court set a next status hearing date of November 23,2011.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph
37. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 37.
38.
In mid-November 2011, Respondent's administrative assistant, James Lee,
telephoned Mr. Sheikhani and requested an immediate additional $750 for attorney's fees
and costs. Mr. Sheikhani asked Mr. Lee whether Respondent had filed his appearance and
answer in case number 10CH3113. At the direction of Respondent, Mr. Lee told the
Sheikhanis that Respondent had filed both an appearance and answer.
13
ANSWER:
39.
Mr. Sheikhani demanded a copy of Respondent's appearance and answer prior
to any further payment beyond the $250 initially paid to Respondent Mr. Sheikhani was not
provided a copy of documents as Respondent had not filed an appearance or answer in
10CH3113. Mr. Sheikhani attempted to call Respondent, but was unable to speak with him
or leave any message for Respondent as Respondent's business voicemail inbox was full and
not accepting any messages.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39, except that he
admits that he had not filed an answer or appearance in case number
10CH3113. Further answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator
concedes in paragraph 36 and 39, as of mid-November 2011, the Sheikhanis
had only paid him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee. Further answering,
Respondent affirmatively states that $250 was insufficient to cover the fees
and costs he would incur in filing any pleadings on the Sheikhanis' behalf in
case number 10CH3113.
40.
As of the date of Mr. Sheikhani's conversation with Mr. Lee in November 2011,
Respondent had neither filed his appearance or answer in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator concedes in
paragraph 36 and 39, as of mid-November 2011, the Sheikhanis had only paid
him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee.
41.
On November 23, 2011, Respondent failed to appear in case number
10CH3113 wherein, the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale against the
Sheikhanis. At no time did Respondent advise the Sheikhanis that judgment for foreclosure
and sale had entered against the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
admits that the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale in case
number 10 CH 3113 on November 23, 2011.
14
42.
At no time did Respondent file an appearance or take any action on behalf of
the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
admits that he did not file an answer or appearance in case number 10CH3113.
Further answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator concedes in
paragraph 36 and 39, as of November 23, 2011, the Sheikhanis had only paid
him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee.
43.
On or about February 29, 2012, the Sheikhanis received notice of a Sheriffs
sale of real estate on their property which was the subject of foreclosure in case number
10CH3113. Prior to February 29, 2012, the Sheikhanis were not aware that judgment had
entered or that Respondent took no action on their behalf in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies the allegations
contained in the second sentence of paragraph 43.
44.
On March 7, 2012, Mr. Sheikhani filed a request for investigation of
Respondent with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, hereinafter
"ARDC," relating to the alleged misconduct of Respondent. As a result of Mr. Sheikhani's
request, the Administrator initiated investigation number 2012IN01249.
ANSWER:
45.
By letter dated March 14,2012, but received by counsel for the Administrator
on April 13,2012, Respondent wrote that "On November 23,2011,1 did appear on behalf of
Mr. Sheikhani and requested leave of court to file my Appearance, Answer or otherwise
plead, which was granted." Respondent provided a copy of the appearance and answer which
he purportedly filed on that date, although the documents were not file stamped by the clerk
of the court.
15
ANSWER:
Respondent admits drafting and sending the letter dated March 14, 2012.
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 45 to the effect that counsel
for the Administrator received that letter on April 13, 2012, and so denies
those allegations. Respondent admits that he wrote the quoted portion of the
March 14,2012 letter, and that he enclosed a copy of the draft appearance and
answer referred to in paragraph 45. Respondent denies any remaining
46.
Respondent's statements to the Commission that on November 23, 2011, he
had appeared in court and filed pleadings on behalf of the Sheikhanis in case number
10CH3113 were false and Respondent knew they were false because he had not filed any
pleadings in case number 10CH3113.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46. Further
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that at no time did he tell the
ARDC, or any of its employees or agents, that he filed pleadings on behalf of
the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113. Respondent affirmatively states
that he only told the ARDC that he had requested leave of court to file his
appearance and answer, and that the court had granted that request
Respondent affirmatively states that both of those statements are true.
47.
a.
failure to abide by a client's decisions concerning the
objectives of representation and the means by which
they are to be pursued, by conduct including failing to
advise Amina and Ali Sheikhani of the status of their
foreclosure, in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b.
in representing a client, by conduct including failing to
represent the Sheikhanis in their foreclosure action, in
Conduct (2010);
16
c.
failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter, by conduct including failing to
advise the Sheikhani's that a judgment for foreclosure
and sale had entered in their foreclosure, in violation of
Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);
ANSWER:
d.
failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information, by conduct including failing to respond to
the Sheikhani's requests for information, in violation of
Conduct (2010);
e.
conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or
misrepresentation, by conduct including Respondent's
representation that he filed his appearance and
pleadings in the Sheikhani's foreclosure matter, in
f.
justice, by conduct including failing to appear and
answer the Sheikhani's foreclosure proceeding and the
resulting judgment of foreclosure and sale on their
property, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT IV
[Alleged Neglect in Loan Modification Matter - Glenn and Clarissa Love)
48.
On or about July 15,2011, Glenn and Clarissa Love consulted with Respondent
about representing them in securing a loan modification of their mortgage and preventing a
foreclosure action by their lender, Vericrest Financial, hereinafter "Vericrest" Respondent
agreed to represent the Loves for a fee of $3000. At that time, Respondent advised the Loves
that they might have a fraud claim against Vericrest.
17
ANSWER:
denies that he agreed to represent the Loves in connection with "preventing a
foreclosure action by" Vericrest
49.
On July 15,2011, pursuant to the Loves' agreement to pay a total fee of $3,000
to Respondent, the Loves paid Respondent $1000 in cash toward Respondent's requested
fee.
ANSWER:
50.
Between July 15, 2011 and January 2012, the Loves regularly telephoned
Respondent to request the status of their loan modification and property foreclosure. On
each occasion, Respondent told the Loves that he was "making great progress, I'm on top of
things," and "we are making great progress on your case."
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he spoke with the Loves several times between July
15, 2011 and January 2012 regarding the status of the loan modification
matter in connection with which the Loves had retained him. Respondent
further admits making the statements quoted in paragraph 50. Further
answering, Respondent denies that the statements quoted in paragraph 50
comprise the entirety of his conversations with the Loves during their several
conversations between July 15, 2011 and January 2012. Respondent denies
51.
In January 2012, Respondent telephoned the Loves, told them that that he had
"been working hard" on their matter and requested an additional $500 payment for
attorney's fees. On January 16, 2012, the Loves mailed a check to Respondent in the amount
of $500 for attorney's fees.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he spoke with the Loves in January 2012. Respondent
admits that he made the statement quoted in paragraph 51, and that he
requested that they pay another $500 toward the $3,000 total fee they had
agreed to pay. Further answering, Respondent denies that the statements
quoted and described in paragraph 51 comprise the entirety of his January
18
2012 conversation with the Loves. Respondent denies any remaining
52.
On March 2, 2012, U.S. Bank and Trust initiated a foreclosure action against
the Lovesin the Circuit Court of CookCounty entitled U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trusteefor LSF6
MRA REO Trust v. Clarissa Love, etal, 12CH7755. The Loves were served with the foreclosure
complaint on March 2,2012.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 52 on information
and belief. Further answering, Respondent denies that he was aware of case
number 12CH7755 on or about March 2,2012.
53.
Between March 2, 2012, and March 16, 2012, the Loves made multiple
telephone calls to Respondent to request information about the foreclosure matter,
12CH7755. Respondent failed to respond to their requests for information.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence ofparagraph
53. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 53.
54.
On or about March 16, 2012, the Loves contacted their lender, Vericrest, and
were told that Respondent neither contacted the lender by telephone or letter regarding the
foreclosure matter.
ANSWER:
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 54 concerning what the
Loves were told by an unnamed employee or agent of Vericrest, because
Respondent was not a party to any such conversation. Therefore, Respondent
denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54. Further answering,
Respondent affirmatively states that he or James Lee had had several contacts
with employees or agents of Vericrest prior to March 16, 2012 in relation to
the loan modification matter as to which the Loves had retained him.
55.
On or about March 16, 2012, the Loves obtained new counsel to represent
them in case number 12CH7755.
19
ANSWER:
or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 55 regarding the date on
which the Loves obtained an attorney to represent them in case number
12CH7755, but he admits that they did obtain counsel in that matter.
56.
On March 19, 2013, Respondent received notice that attorney David Kadzai
filed his appearance on behalf of the Loves in case number 12CH7755.
ANSWER:
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he became aware of Mr.
Kadzai's representation of the Loves in a separate conversation with Mr.
Kadzai.
57.
a.
in representing a client, Glenn and Clarissa Love, by
conduct including failing to assist the Loves in securing a
loan modification and prevent a foreclosure action, in
Conduct (2010);
b.
failure to keep the client, the Loves, reasonably informed
about the status of the loan modification, in violation of
Conduct (2010);
c.
information, by conduct including failing to provide the
Loves
with
information
related
to
their
loan
modification, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois
d.
misrepresentation,
by
conduct including the
representation that Respondent was making progress on
the Loves loan modification matter, in violation of Rule
20
8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010); and
e.
ANSWER:
justice, by conduct including failing to assist the Loves in
a loan modification and the subsequent filing of a
foreclosure action against the Loves, in violation of Rule
8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010).
BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO COUNTS V-VIII
58.
Between 2010 and 2012, James Lee, a non-lawyer, was a full-time employee at
Respondent's law office, Law Office of Joseph P. Harris & Associates, hereinafter "Law Office."
Respondent, as well as Mr. Lee himself, identified Mr. Lee to clients as a loan officer or
mortgage broker, although Mr. Lee's broker's license had lapsed prior to his employment at
Respondent's office.
ANSWER:
admits that Mr. Lee's broker's license lapsed at one time.
59.
Between 2010 and 2012, Mr. Lee, frequently met, and communicated with,
Respondent's clients unaccompanied by Respondent. Mr. Lee independently negotiated with
insurance companies and mortgage companies on behalf of the Law Office.
ANSWER:
60.
In text messages sent by Mr. Lee to Respondent's clients, Mr. Lee identified
himself as "James Lawyer" thereby suggesting that Mr. Lee was a licensed attorney employed
as an associate in Respondent's Law Office.
ANSWER:
21
61.
Mr. Lee was the registered agent, and only officer, of an entity entitled
"Premiere Property Solutions." Premiere Property Solutions advertised on social media
sites, such as Facebook, stating the following:
"Our Mission is to protect the American Dream of home
ownership through Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood
Stabilization. We Buy and Sell Bank Owned Foreclosure at a
Discount Premiere Property Solutions is a nonprofit
corporation that help distressed homeowners get through the
challenges of mortgage default and foreclosure. Our Goal is to
empower homeowners, individuals and investors with the
information, resources and assistance needed to purchase
property and rebuild neighborhoods in our communities."
ANSWER:
those allegations.
62.
At all times relevant to Counts V-VIII, Mr. Lee maintained a TCF Bank account,
with the last four digits 6576, entitled "Premiere Property Solutions." Mr. Lee was the only
signatory and authorized user of the TCF account number ending in 6576. Mr. Lee used the
TCF bank account for both business and personal purposes. During the time of Mr. Lee's
employment with Respondent, and with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, Mr. Lee
deposited fee payments for the following clients directly into his Premiere Property
Solutions TCFaccount ending in 6576: Tascha Williams-Akodu, Michael Turner, Eddie Sylas,
Erica Cuneen, Michael Williams, Charese and Wendell Howard, Linita McMillian, Bruce
Callahan, Catherine Rison, Khalil Rahim.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first three sentences of
paragraph 62. Respondent denies that the deposits referred to in the fourth
sentence of paragraph 62 were made with his knowledge or authorization, and
he denies that Erica Cuneen, referred to in the fourth sentence of paragraph
62, was a client of Respondent or his law firm, or that she made any "fee
22
payments" to Respondent or his firm. Respondent denies any remaining
COUNTV
{Alleged Neglect/Failure to Supervise Insurance Matter - Regina Hall)
63.
Prior to August 22, 2012, the property owned by Regina Hall, located at 5223
W. Monroe Street in Chicago, was damaged by fire.
ANSWER:
and belief.
64.
On or about August 22, 2012, Regina Hall went to Respondent's office where
she consulted with Respondent and Mr. Lee. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Hall in
investigating liability, and subsequently filing a civil suit, related to the fire damage at 5223
W. Monroe Street Respondent suggested that a lawsuit might be filed against the "public
property adjuster," the repair contractor, or Ms. Hall's insurer, State Farm Insurance
Company.
ANSWER:
65.
On September 18,2012, Ms. Hall signed an agreement to pay an initial retainer
fee of $3,500 to Respondent, with an immediate initial $1,500 fee for administrative costs
including initial drafting of court documents. The remaining $2000 payment was to be made
as soon as reasonably possible, pursuant to the written fee agreement
ANSWER:
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that in or about September 2012,
he determined not to represent Ms. Hall, and that he wrote her a
disengagement letter to that effect.
66.
On or about September 20,2012, Mr. Lee telephoned Ms. Hall and told her that
Respondent wanted to "move quickly to get [Hall and her family] out of the house to begin
23
the repair process and legal proceeding." Mr. Lee requested to immediately meet with Ms.
Hall and pick up the initial $1500 retainer fee from her. Ms. Hall agreed to meet with Mr. Lee
later that same day, at her place of employment wherein Mr. Lee received Ms. Hall's check
number 1363, payable to "Premiere Property Solutions" in the amount of $1,500. Ms. Hall
believed the $1,500 payable to "Premiere Property Solutions" was for the filing of a civilsuit
related to the fire at 5223 W. Monroe Street.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
67.
Between September 20, 2012 and November 28, 2012, Ms. Hall left multiple
messages for Respondent and Mr. Lee at the Law Office via texts, telephone messages and emails requesting the status of the civil suit involving the fire at 5223 W. Monroe Street
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he was aware of any messages from Ms. Hall between
September 20, 2012 and November 28, 2012. Respondent denies any
68.
On November 28, 2012, Mr. Lee telephoned Ms. Hall and informed her that
Respondent did not want to "take the case," and, as it was Respondent's decision to decline
representation of Ms. Hall, she would receive a full refund of $1,500 from Respondent.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
69.
At no time subsequent to November 28, 2012, did Respondent refund any
portion of Ms. Hall's $1,500 retainer.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he ever received a $1,500 retainer from Ms. Hall.
24
70.
Respondent did not provide sufficient legal services to warrant a fee in the
amount of $1,500.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he agreed to, or did, perform legal services for Ms. Hall
other than in the initial consultation he had with her on or about August 22,
2012. Further answering, Respondent denies that he received a fee from Ms.
Hall in the amount of $1,500. Respondent denies any remaining allegations
contained in paragraph 70.
71.
a.
in representing a client, Regina Hall, by conduct
including the failing to investigate fire damage and file a
civil suit, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010);
b.
status of the investigation and potential for filing a civil
suit, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of
c.
information, by conduct including failing to answer Ms.
Hall's phone, text and e-mail messages, in violation of
Conduct (2010);
d.
failure to refund promptly any part of a fee, $1,500, paid
in advance that has not been earned, by conduct
including Respondent's failing to investigate and file a
civil suit, in violation of Rule 1.16(e) of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct (2010); and
e.
failure to supervise a non-lawyer, employee James Lee,
over whom a lawyer has direct supervisory authority in
the Regina Hall matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
25
ANSWER:
COUNT VT
{Alleged Failure to Supervise Employee - Edgarand Patricia Banks)
72.
Prior to October 2011, Edgar and Patricia Banks consulted with Respondent
about representing them in their attempts to obtain a loan modification and/or reduction of
the amount of the principal with the lenders relating to three mortgages on three separate
properties which the Banks owned. Of the Banks' three properties, one property was the
Banks' residence and the remaining two were commercial properties. Respondent agreed to
represent the Banks for a total fee of $9000, after obtaining forensic audits of their mortgage
documents to determine whether there were statutory violations which could be used as
leverage in negotiations. At no time did the Banks' advise Respondent that their properties
were in danger of foreclosure or any other legal action by their mortgage holders.
ANSWER:
denies that he ever agreed to, or did, obtain forensic audits in relation to the
Bankses. Further answering, Respondent states that Patricia Lawson, an
acquaintance of the Bankses, agreed to prepare or obtain the forensic audits.
73.
On October 28,2011, the Banks' paid a forensic auditor $2,100 for three audits
relating to their mortgages on each property. The audits were delivered to Respondent's
office. Respondent did not provide the Banks' with a copy of the audits.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the first sentence of paragraph 73, upon information and
belief. Further answering, Respondent states, upon information and belief,
that the "forensic auditor" referred to in paragraph 73 was Patricia Lawson.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 73, except that he denies that he received the audits in October
2011, as he was recovering from a stroke at that time. Further answering,
Respondent states that he received the audits in or about December 2011.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of
paragraph 73. Further answering, Respondent denies that the Bankses
26
requested copies of the forensic audits. Respondent denies any remaining
74.
On November 4, 2011, after reviewing the audits, Respondent advised the
Banks' that the audits yielded information which could be useful in negotiating reductions of
the principals or modification of the Banks' mortgages. Respondent requested that the Banks
pay an initial retainer of one-third of his requested fee of $3,000 per property. The Banks
paid Respondent $3,000 of Respondent's total requested fee of $9,000.
ANSWER:
74, and, further answering, states that he did not receive or review the audits
until December 2011. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the
second sentence of paragraph 74. Respondent admits the allegations
contained in the third sentence of paragraph 74.
75.
After receiving the initial retainer from the Banks', Respondent advised them
that, James Lee would be their "contact person" at the Law Office in relation to negotiating
reductions of the principals or modifications of the Banks' mortgages, due to Respondent's
busy court schedule.
ANSWER:
76.
At no time after November 4, 2011, did Respondent or his employee, Mr. Lee,
contact the Banks regarding any efforts to seek principal reductions or modifications of the
Banks' loans. The Banks left multiple voicemail messages, and wrote letters, to both
Respondent and Mr. Lee requesting information about the status of their loan modifications
or principal reductions. Neither Respondent nor Mr. Lee returned the Banks' telephone calls
or responded to their letters requesting information.
ANSWER:
27
o
77.
At no time did Respondent, or Mr. Lee, refund any portion of the $3,000 which
the Banks paid to Respondent as an initial retainer.
ANSWER:
78.
At no time did Respondent, or Mr. Lee, contact the lenders on behalf of the
Banks.
ANSWER:
79.
Respondent did not provide sufficient legal services to warrant a fee in the
amount of $3,000.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79, including any
legal conclusions pled therein.
80.
a.
in representing a client, Edgar and Patricia Banks, by
conduct including failing to assist the Banks in securing
a loan modification and/or mortgage reduction, in
Conduct (2010);
b.
failure to keep the client, the Banks, reasonably informed
about the status of the loan modification and/or
mortgage reduction, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
c.
information, by conduct including failing to turn over
forensic audits and to respond to the Banks' voicemail
messages and letters, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the
d.
failure to refund promptly any part of a fee, $3,000, paid
in advance that has not been earned, by conduct
28
including failing to contact the Banks' lenders to
negotiate loan modification and/or mortgage reduction,
in violation of Rule 1.16(e) of the Illinois Rules of
e.
the Banks' matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER:
COUNT VII
{Alleged Neglect/Failure to Supervise in Loan Modification Matter - Carolyn Whiteurst)
81.
On May 26,2011, Flagstar Bank FSB, hereinafter "Flagstar," held the mortgage
to property owned by Carolyn Whiteurst and located at 4127 Indian Hill Drive, Country Club
Hills, Illinois.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 81, not based upon
personal knowledge but upon information and belief.
82.
On or about May 26,2011, Flagstar filed a foreclosure complaint in the Circuit
Court of Cook County in a matter entitled Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Carolyn D. Whiteurst, et ah,
ANSWER:
83.
On or about February 14, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst consulted with Respondent
about representing her in the defense of a foreclosure on her Country Club Hills property.
Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Whiteurst for a fee of $3000. Mr. Lee was also present
during the initial February 14,2012 meeting between Ms.Whiteurst and Respondent. At that
time, Respondent assured Ms. Whiteurst that he would be successful in stopping the
29
foreclosure process as there was no date set forthe foreclosure sale. Ms. Whiteurst provided
Respondent with documents related to her Country Club Hills property.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first three sentences of
paragraph 83. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the fourth
sentence of paragraph 83. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the
fifth sentence of paragraph 83.
84.
Pursuant to Ms. Whiteurst's agreement to pay a total fee of $3,000 to
Respondent for his representation in the foreclosure action, she immediately paid
Respondent $250 in cash and shortly thereafter paid an additional $250 in cash. Respondent
agreed that he would begin work on her foreclosure matter after receipt of an initial $500
retainer.
ANSWER:
paragraph 84.
85.
A few days after their initial meeting, Respondent advised Ms. Whiteurst that
her mortgage documents were turned over to Mr. Lee, who managed all loan modification
matters for the Law Office, and that Mr. Lee should be her "contact person," in relation to the
foreclosure matter.
ANSWER:
86.
On March 27,2012, Mr. Lee met with Ms. Whiteurst, at her residence, returned
the original mortgage documents and requested an additional fee of $250. Ms. Whiteurst
tendered to Mr. Lee her $250 check, number 1229, payable to "Premier Property Solutions."
Mr. Lee subsequently deposited Ms. Whiteurst's check number 1229 into his TCF account,
ending in number 6576.
30
ANSWER:
those allegations.
87.
In April 2012, upon receipt of a notice of sale in the foreclosure matter
docketed as case number 11CH19157, Ms. Whiteurst promptly mailed the notice document
to Respondent Respondent advised Ms. Whiteurst that he filed a request for mediation in
her foreclosure matter.
ANSWER:
contained in the second sentence of paragraph 87.
88.
Respondent's statement to Ms. Whiteurst that he filed a request for mediation
in case number 11CH19157 was false and Respondent knew it was false because at no time
did Respondent file his appearance, any pleading or document, including a request for
mediation, in her foreclosure matter prior to the April 2012 order approving the sale of Ms.
Whiteurst's property.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he made any false statements to Ms. Whiteurst.
89.
On May 2, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst sent Respondent an additional $250 check,
number 1134, payable to "Premiere Property Solutions." With Respondent's knowledge and
authorization, Mr. Lee deposited Ms. Whiteurst's check number 1134 into his TCF account,
ANSWER:
contained in the first phrase of the second sentence of paragraph 89.
31
or falsity of the allegations contained in the second phrase of the second
sentence of paragraph 89, and therefore denies those allegations.
90.
On May 6, 2012, Mr. Lee electronically mailed Ms. Whiteurst and requested
she fill out an HUD loan modification program application, hereinafter "HAMP," and provide
proof of employment, checkstubs and bank statements for purposes of a loan modification.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
91.
In May 2012, Mr. Lee told Ms. Whiteurst that Respondent "went into court and
pleaded her case" but that Judge Alfred Swanson told Respondent that he "was not granting
any motions today for people to stop their foreclosures." Mr. Lee assured Ms. Whiteurst that
she should not worry.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
92.
Statements made by Respondent's employee, Mr. Lee, to Ms. Whiteurst that
Respondent appeared in court on her behalf before Judge Swanson were false. At no time did
Respondent appear in court on behalf of Ms.Whiteurst in case number 11CH19157. On May
23,2012, Judge Swanson entered an order approving the report of sale and distribution and
confirming sale and order of possession of property in case number 11CH19157. At no time
did Respondent advise Ms. Whiteurst ofthe order entered on May 23,2012 in the foreclosure
matter.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he authorized any statements of the kind described in
paragraphs 91 and 92 to be made by Mr. Lee or anyone else to Ms. Whiteurst,
or that he knew that any such statements were made. Respondent denies any
remaining allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 92.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of
32
paragraph 92. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third
sentence of paragraph 92. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the
fourth sentence of paragraph 92.
93.
On June 6, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst sent Respondent an additional $300 check,
number 1136, payable to "Premiere Property Solutions." With Respondent's knowledge and
authorization, Mr. Lee deposited Ms. Whiteurst's check number 1134 into his TCF account,
ANSWER:
or falsity ofthe allegations containedin the first sentence ofparagraph 93,and
94.
In July 2012, Ms. Whiteurst received notice of the May 23, 2012 order
approving sale in case number 11CH 19157 from the Sheriffs Office. Ms. Whiteurst mailed
the notice to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Whiteurst spoke to Mr. Lee who advised
her not to worry as her lender had not served Ms. Whiteurst's son and that as her son Julian
also resided at that address, there could be no foreclose [sic] on the property without service
to Julian. Mr. Lee advised that Ms. Whiteurst that upon receipt of an order of possession, she
should go to the Sheriffs office and provide the Sheriff with proof of her son Julian's
occupancy at the property.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
95.
On or about August 4, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst sent Respondent an additional
$250, by way of her check number 1236, payable to "Premiere Property Solutions." With
33
Respondent's knowledge and authorization, Mr. Lee deposited Ms. Whiteurst's check
number 1236 into his TCF account ending in number 6576.
ANSWER:
96.
On September 18, 2012, the Sheriff served Ms. Whiteurst with an order of
possession.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 96, upon
information and belief.
97.
On September 20, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst went to the Sheriffs Office with proof
of residency for her son Julian. Ms. Whiteurst was notified, by the Sheriffs office, that the
initial notice of sale included her son by stating "defendants, unknown and non-record
claimants," and that all residents of the property were required to vacate the premises
immediately.
ANSWER:
those allegations.
98.
As of September 20, 2012, Respondent had not filed his appearance or any
pleadings in case number 11CH19157.
ANSWER:
99.
On September 24, 2012, without notifying Ms. Whiteurst, Respondent filed a
motion to stay the execution of the order of possession in case number 11CH19157 alleging
failure by Flagstar to obtain service on her son Julian.
34
ANSWER:
Respondent denies that he filed the motion described in paragraph 99, or any
other pleading, without Ms. Whiteurst's knowledge or authority. Respondent
denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 99.
100.
On September 2, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst filed a pro se motion for an extension in
ANSWER:
denies that he denies that Ms. Whiteurst filed her motion on September 2,
2012. Further answering, Respondent states that the file stamp affixed to her
motion indicates that Ms. Whiteurst caused the motion to be filed on
September 25,2012.
101.
On September 27,2012, Judge Swanson denied Ms. Whiteurst's motion for an
extension in case number 11CH 19157 and ruled that Ms. Whiteurst was required to vacate
the premises.
ANSWER:
102.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 101, not based
upon personal knowledge but upon information and belief.
After September 27, 2012, Ms. Whiteurst contacted Flagstar and negotiated a
"cash for keys" deal, whereby she would voluntarily vacate the premises, in good condition,
and mail the keys to the bank in exchange for $1,200 in cash from her lender.
ANSWER:
103.
those allegations.
After Ms. Whiteurst vacated her home, Flagstar notified her that Respondent
had filed a motion to stay the execution of the order of possession on September 24,2012 in
case number 2011 CH 19157 alleging failure by Flagstar to obtain service on her son, Julian.
Flagstar notified Ms. Whiteurst that Respondent's action in filing a pleading thereby negated
the "cash for keys" deal she had negotiated with Flagstar. Ms. Whiteurst did not receive the
$1,200 for vacating the property.
35
ANSWER:
104.
those allegations.
On October 9, 2012, Judge Swanson granted Flagstar's motion to strike
Respondent's motion to stay in 11 CH 19157.
ANSWER:
105.
a.
in representing a client, Carolyn Whiteurst, by conduct
including failing to represent Ms. Whiteurst in a
foreclosure action, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois
b.
failure to keep the client, Ms. Whiteurst, reasonably
informed about the status of the foreclosure matter, in
c.
information, by conduct including failing to provide Ms.
Whiteurst information about her foreclosure action, in
d.
Ms. Whiteurst's matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
e.
justice, by conduct including the untimely filing of a
motion to stay in Ms. Whiteurst's foreclosure action after
Ms. Whiteurst negotiated a "cash for keys" deal with
plaintiff Flagstar which voided Ms. Whiteurst's deal and
receipt of $1,200 for voluntarily vacating the premises
36
and delaying a resolution of the client's matter, in
violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of
ANSWER:
COUNT VIII
{Alleged Failure to Supervise - Rahwa and Omowale Casselle]
106.
On or about May 7, 2012, Rahwa and Omowale Casselle entered into an
agreement to purchase property, owned by Matthew Williams, and located at 53 Chicago
Avenue in Oak Park Illinois, hereinafter "Oak Park property." Attorney Nichole Capraro
represented the Casselles and Respondent represented Mr. Williams. Respondent's
employee, James Lee, was the listed broker for the Oak Park property.
ANSWER:
107.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 106, except to the
extent that the last sentence of paragraph 106 is intended to allege that
Respondent had any involvement in causing James Lee to be listed, described,
or chosen as a broker in relation to the Oak Park property. Respondent denies
any allegation to that effect.
On May 15, 2012, the buyers tendered $1,000 by check, number 275, payable
to Premiere Property Solutions as earnest money for the Oak Park property.
ANSWER:
and belief. Further answering, however, Respondent denies that he had any
knowledge of the existence or tender of the $1,000 check described in
paragraph 107 as of May 15,2012.
108.
On May 16, 2012, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, Mr. Lee
deposited check number 275 into his TCF account, ending in number 6576.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegation in paragraph 108 to the effect that he
authorized Mr. Lee to deposit the check described in paragraph 108 into the
TCF account, and he denies the allegation that he knew of the deposit
Respondent admits the remainder of paragraph 108 upon information and
belief.
37
109.
On May 17, 2012, Ms. Capraro sent Respondent an attorney review letter
requesting certain revisions to the sales agreement. Respondent did not respond to Ms.
Capraro's letter.
ANSWER:
paragraph 109.
110.
Between May 17,2012, and September 15,2012, Capraro sent four additional
letters requesting a response to her May 17, 2012, letter and addressing various other
concerns related to the sale of the Oak Park property. Respondent failed to respond to any
of Ms. Capraro's letters.
ANSWER:
111.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence ofparagraph
paragraph 110.
Between May 17, 2012, and September 15, 2012, Ms. Capraro was unable to
contact Respondent by telephone. Ms. Capraro then spoke with Mr. Lee who advised her that
Respondent was working on the matter as a short sale.
ANSWER:
112.
111. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 111, and therefore denies those allegations.
On September 15,2012, Ms. Capraro deemed the contract to purchase null and
void. By way of a written demand letter, Ms. Capraro requested Respondent return the
$1,000 earnest money.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that there exists a letter from Ms. Capraro that bears the
date September 15,2012. Respondent denies that he received the letter on or
about the date it bears. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states
that Ms. Capraro's stated reason for demanding the return of the earnest
38
money related to her assertions regarding the physical condition of the
property.
113.
Between September 15, 2012 and October 11, 2012, Ms. Capraro's staff made
multiple, unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent and Mr. Lee at the Law Office via
texts, telephone messages and e-mails.
ANSWER:
114.
Respondent denies the allegations contained paragraph 113.
On October 11,2012, Ms. Capraro's assistant, Jana Burke, spoke to Respondent
who asked Ms. Burke to give him 10 days to produce the earnest money.
ANSWER:
115.
Respondent admits that he had a conversation with Ms. Burke in which he
requested additional time within which to provide the earnest money. Further
answering. Respondent affirmatively states that when he made that request,
Ms. Burke responded by threatening to report him to the ARDC. Respondent
At no time subsequent to October 11, 2012, did Respondent refund any
portion of the Casselle's $1,000 in earnest funds.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not cause the earnest money to be refunded.
Further answering, Respondent states that his client in the transaction, the
seller of the property, performed repairs to the property that were demanded
by the Casselles, and that caused him to expend funds in excess of the $1,000
earnest money. Further answering, Respondent states that his client was
entitled to be reimbursed for those expenditures from the $1,000 earnest
money, and that the Casselles were therefore not entitled to a refund.
116.
a.
in representing a client, Matthew Williams, by conduct
including failing to represent seller, Mr. Williams, in a
real estate transaction with buyers, Rahma and Omowale
Casselle, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of
39
b.
failure to keep the client, Mr. Williams, reasonably
informed about the status of the matter, including
requests for revisions to a real estate sales agreement, in
c.
information, by conduct failing to respond to text,
telephone and e-mail messages requesting revisions to a
real estate contract and return of escrow money, in
d.
Mr. Williams' matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
e.
failure to promptly deliver to a client or third person any
funds or other property that the client or third person is
entitled to receive, by conduct including failing to return
$1,000 in escrow funds to the Casselles, in violation of
Rule 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010).
ANSWER:
COUNT IX
[AllegedNeglect/Failure to Supervise Eviction Matter- Robinsons)
117.
On or about November 26, 1986, Timothy Robinson acquired an interest in
property located at 116 N. Lancaster, Bolingbrook, IL, hereinafter "Bolingbrook property,"
and has resided in that property since that date.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 117 not based
upon personal knowledge, but upon information and belief.
40
118.
On or about August 17, 2005, Timothy Robinson lost his interest in the
Bolingbrook property to Onshelle Jackson, a representative of RYM Technology Holdings
LLC, hereinafter, "RYM Tech."
ANSWER:
119.
On July 14,2006, Union, now known as JP Morgan Chase, initiated foreclosure
proceedings against Onshelle Jackson and EMC Mortgage in the Circuit Court of Will County
as case number 2006CH1650, entitled JP Morgan Chase v. OnshelleJackson, EMC Mortgage
and Unknown Claimants. On October 30, 2006, an order of default was entered against all
named defendants.
ANSWER:
120.
On November 30, 2006, Timothy Robinson filed a pro se motion to vacate
judgment in case number 2006CH1650, informing the court that he was the rightful owner
of the Bolingbrook property and a victim of fraud in the conveyance of the property to
Jackson.
ANSWER:
121.
Between November 2006 and October 2008, Robinson asserted defenses and
filed several counterclaims in 2006CH1650. On May 27, 2008, those counterclaims were
dismissed. On October 29, 2008, a judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered against
Robinson. On March 22,2012, the judgment of foreclosure was affirmed.
ANSWER:
41
122.
On September 29,2010, the Bank of New York initiated a forcible entry action
against the Robinsons in the Circuit Court of Will County entitled The Bank ofNew York as
Successor in Interest to J. P. Morgan Chase Bank NA v. Tim Robinson, Brue Robinson, Shana
Robinson and Unknown Occupants, case number 10LM2784. On or about October 12, 2010,
Timothy, Brue and Shana Robinson, hereinafter the "Robinsons," were served notice of the
action in 10LM2784.
ANSWER:
123.
On or about early April 2012, the Robinsons received a notice of eviction in
10LM2784.
ANSWER:
124.
In early April 2012, Timothy Robinson and Shana Robinson, his daughter,
consulted with Respondent about his representation of their interests in defense of the
forcible entry action in 10LM2784. Respondent advised the Robinsons that RYM-Tech had
recently been indicted on mortgage fraud charges and agreed to assist the Robinsons in the
matters, pending in the Circuit Court of Will County as 06CH1650 and 10LM2784, for a fee
of $6000, with an initial retainer of 1500. Respondent advised the Robinsons that James Lee
would be the "contact person" in relation to the Will County matters.
ANSWER:
paragraph 124, except that he denies that he agreed to represent the
Robinsons in connection with case number 10LM2784. Respondent denies the
allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 124.
42
u
125.
OnApril 19,2012, Timothy Robinson paid Respondent $1,500 of Respondent's
requested fee of $8,000.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that on April 19, 2012, Timothy Robinson paid
Respondent $1,500. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained
in paragraph 125.
126.
At no time did Respondent ever file his appearance in case 06CH1650 or
10LM2784.
ANSWER:
127.
answering, Respondent states that prior to filing his appearance in case
number 06CH1650, he was unable to come to an agreement with the
Robinsons regarding the appropriate claims to raise on their behalf in that
matter, or how to raise them. Further answering, Respondent denies that he
was retained to represent the Robinsons in case number 10LM2784, or that
he agreed to represent them in that matter.
On May 30, 2012, Respondent failed to appear in court and a judgment for
eviction and extension of an additional 120 days on enforcement of the judgment were
entered in case number 10LM2784. Ms. Robinson e-mailed Respondent, and Mr. Lee,
advising Respondent of the judgment and extension.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph
127 that he "failed to appear in court" on May 30, 2012. Further answering,
Respondent states that although he was not retained to represent the
Robinsons in case number 10LM2784, he accompanied them to court as an
accommodation. Respondent admits the remaining allegations contained in
the first sentence of paragraph 127. Respondent admits the allegations
contained in the second sentence of paragraph 127. Respondent denies any
128.
On or about May 31, 2012, James Lee e-mailed Ms. Robinson advising her on
the extension and law related to tenant protection in foreclosures. Mr. Lee further advised
Ms. Robinson that he would prepare something to file in court in case 10LM2784.
43
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that James Lee sent an e-mail communication to Shana
Robinson on May 31, 2012, and further answering, states that the contents of
that e-mail communication speak for themselves. Respondent denies any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 128, including any legal
conclusions pled therein.
129.
On June 18, 2012, Shana Robinson filed a motion to reconsider the court's
ruling of eviction in case number 10LM2784. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on June
27, 2012. Mr. Robinson notified Respondent of the hearing date. On June 27, 2012,
Respondent failed to appear on for case number 10LM2784.
ANSWER:
130.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first and second sentences
of paragraph 129 not based upon personal knowledge, but upon information
and belief. Respondent denies the third sentence of paragraph 129.
Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 10LM2784 on June
27, 2012, but he denies that he was obligated or required to do so, and so he
denies the allegation that he "failed" to appear on that date. Respondent denies
On July 3, 2012, Shana Robinson sent an e-mail to Respondent and Mr. Lee,
that the judge continued the matter in case number 10LM2784 to July 26,2012. Ms. Robinson
requested assurances that Respondent would appear for the July 26, 2012 hearing or, in the
alternative, advise the Robinson that he would not represent them and refund the retainer
fee of $1500. Shortly thereafter, Respondent telephoned Ms. Robinson and assured her that
he was working on the eviction matter and sent an invoice indicating the Robinsons owed
Respondent an additional $6500 for fees earned in 10LM2784.
ANSWER:
paragraph 130, but denies that those allegations contain a full recitation of the
contents of the email communication referred to in paragraph 131, which
speak for themselves. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the third
sentence of paragraph 130.
44
131.
On July 18, 2012, Shana Robinson sent an e-mail to Respondent, and James
Lee, requesting a status of their matters and reminding Respondent that the next scheduled
court date in case number 10LM2784 was July 26,2012, at 9:00 a.m.
ANSWER:
132.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 131, but denies
that those allegations contain a full recitation of the contents of the email
communication referred to in paragraph 131, which speak for themselves.
On July 26, 2012, Respondent failed to appear in court, on behalf of the
Robinsons, on case number 10 LM 2784 and an order of eviction was entered against the
Robinsons.
ANSWER:
133.
Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 10LM2784 on July
26, 2012, but he denies that he was obligated or required to do so, and so he
denies the allegation that he "failed" to appear on that date. Respondent denies
On July 30, 2012, Shana Robinson sent another e-mail to Respondent, and
James Lee, requesting a refund of their $1,500 retainer as Respondent had failed to appear
in court on three dates in case number 10 LM 2784.
ANSWER:
that those allegations contain a full recitation of the contents of the email
communication referred to in paragraph 133, which speak for themselves.
Further answering, Respondent denies that he was obligated or required to
appear on any of the court dates referred to in paragraph 133, and so he denies
the allegation that he "failed" to appear for them. Respondent denies any
134. At no time did Respondentrefund to the Robinsons any portion of the $1,500
fee which the Robinsons paid to Respondent as an initial retainer.
ANSWER:
that he was obligated or required to refund any portion of the $1,500 referred
to in paragraph 134. Respondentdenies any remainingallegations contained
in paragraph 134.
45
135.
a.
in representing a client, by conduct including failure to
appear at scheduled court dates and assist the Robinsons
in the pending matters, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the
b.
status of the matter, by conduct including failure to
inform the Robinsons of the status of the eviction matter,
in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of
c.
information, by conduct including failure to return calls
and advise the Robinsons of the status of the eviction
matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct (2010);
d.
failure to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in
advance that has not been earned, by conduct including
having taken no court action in the eviction matter, in
violation of Rule 1.16(e) of the Illinois Rules of
e.
the Robinson matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the
f.
justice, by conduct including failure to appear on
multiple dates for the appearance of Respondent on
behalf of the Robinsons, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
ANSWER:
46
COUNTX
{AllegedNeglect in Condemnation Matter- Warner Daniels)
136.
On or about May of 2007, Warner Daniels consulted with Respondent about
recovering proceeds related to a condemnation proceeding involving property, owned in
part by Mr. Daniels, located at 13628 S. Lowe, Riverdale, IL. The matter was pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, entitled The Village ofRiverdale v. Chicago Title Land Trust
Company, etal, case number 06L51262.
ANSWER:
136 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent admits that in May 2007, he
consulted with Warner Daniels concerning a condemnation proceeding
involving the property located at 13628 S. Lowe, Riverdale, IL. Further
answering, Respondent admits that Daniels had been a party to an agreement
to purchase at least a partial ownership interest in the real property located at
13628 S. Lowe, Riverdale, IL. Respondent admits the allegations contained in
the second sentence of paragraph 136. Further answering, Respondent states
that he also agreed to, and did, represent Mr. Daniels in connection with other
litigation concerning the property located at 13628 S. Lowe. Respondent
137.
Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Daniels in case number 06L51262 for an
initial retainer of $3000. By late May, 2007, Mr. Daniels paid Respondent paid the $3000
retainer in full, by three cash incremental payments of $1000. Later, Mr. Daniels agreed to
pay Respondent an additional $4000 from the proceeds of the condemnation proceeding in
case number 06L51262.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first and second sentences
of paragraph 137. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third
sentence of paragraph 137.
47
138.
On June 8, 2007, Respondent filed his appearance on behalf of Mr. Daniels in
the matter of The Village ofRiverdale v. Chicago TitleLand TrustCompany, etal., case number
06L51262.
ANSWER:
139.
On July 12,2007, the plaintiff, Village of Riverdale, filed an amended complaint
in case number 06L51262 and defendants Pinnacle/Fifth, Pinnacle/Unknown and Pin Trust
11801 were defaulted.
ANSWER:
140.
On September 24,2007, defendants New Cities Community, Citizens Financial
and Fifth Third Bank were defaulted in case number 06L51262.
ANSWER:
141.
On October 1,2007, the court entered judgment for defendant and vested title
of the property to the Village of Riverdale. The Village of Riverdale was granted leave to
deposit $54,000 with the Treasurer of Cook County for the full taking of the property in case
number 06L51262.
ANSWER:
141 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent admits that on October 1,
2007, the court in case number 06 L 51262 entered an order granting the
Village of Riverdale the right to possess the real property that was the subject
of case number 06 L 51262. Further answering, Respondent denies that the
October 1, 2007 order was a "judgment for defendant," i.e. Daniels, as alleged
in paragraph 141. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that the
October 1,2007 order provided, interalia, that "final just compensation in the
amount of...$54,000...be paid by Plaintiff herein to the owner or owners of,
or party or parties interested in the subject property..." [emphasis added].
Respondent admits the remaining allegations of paragraph 141.
48
142.
On November 7, 2007, the Village of Riverdale deposited $54,000 with the
Treasurer of Cook County, under case number 06L51262. As of April 28, 2014, the $54,000
funds remain in the custody of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
ANSWER:
143.
On July 30, 2008, Respondent filed a petition, in case number 06L51262,
seeking leave to withdraw just compensation of $54,000 to Mr. Daniels. Respondent noticed
up the hearing date on the petition for August 6,2008. On August 6,2008, Respondent failed
to appear in court to present the petition. As of May 1,2014, Respondent has taken no further
action on behalf of Mr. Daniels to receive the $54,000 or any part thereof.
ANSWER:
144.
of paragraph 143. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or recollection on
which to base a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in
the third sentence of paragraph 143, and therefore denies those allegations.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of
paragraph 143.
Between August, 2008 and early 2011, Mr. Daniels made multiple,
unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent by calling the office telephone numbers of
Respondent's two law offices.
ANSWER:
145.
a.
appear and litigate the petition filed on July 30, 2008, in
Conduct (1990); and
49
b.
ANSWER:
status of the matter, by conduct including failing to
inform Mr. Daniels about the status of his request for just
compensation, in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (1990).
COUNT XI
[Alleged Neglect in Foreclosure Matter - KimberlyJones)
146.
On or about February, 2009, Kimberly Jones, as executor of the estate of Billie
J. Jones and Cordia Cortez Jones, hereinafter "Jones," retained Respondent to defend Jones in
a foreclosure action, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, entitled Wachovia Bank
Delaware, etal, v. CityConstruction Company, etal, case number 08CH18466.
ANSWER:
147.
Respondent agreed to represent Jones in case number 08CH18466 and
requested an initial retainer of $1000. Ms. Jones paid the $1000 retainer in incremental
amounts, by money order, after which Respondent advised her that he would immediately
file his appearance in case number 08CH18466.
ANSWER:
148.
At no time did Respondent file his appearance, any pleading or document in
her foreclosure matter prior to the order approving the sale of Jones [sic] property.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 08CH18466 or file
any pleading or document in that matter at any time, but he denies that he was
obligated or required to do so, because, as he previously informed the
Administrator, he was not retained to represent any party in the case.
149.
Ms. Jones met with Respondent on several occasions to request the status of
the foreclosure matter. On each occasion, Respondent advised Jones that he was working on
50
the matter. Respondent's statements to Jones were false and Respondent knew his
statements were false when made as Respondent neither filed as appearance not worked on
[sic] case number 08CH18466.
ANSWER:
150.
On September 14,2010, the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale
against the [sic] Ms. Jones in case number 08 CH 18466.
ANSWER:
151.
those allegations.
As of May 1,2014, Respondent neither filed an appearance nor took any action
on behalf of Jones in case number 08 CH 18466.
ANSWER:
152.
a.
appear on behalf of Ms. Jones in the foreclosure matter,
in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (1990);
b.
status of the matter and promptly comply with requests
for information, by conduct including failing to advise
51
Ms. Jones about the status of the foreclosure matter, in
violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of
c.
ANSWER:
misrepresentation,
by
conduct
including
his
representation that he was working on Ms. Jones' behalf
in the foreclosure matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990).
COUNT XII
[Alleged Neglect in Personal InjuryMatter - Marcella Rubio)
153.
On December 4, 2007, Marcella Rubio, hereinafter "Rubio," was involved in a
motor vehicle collision. Rubio was driving her vehicle, a 2002 Ford Mustang, when she was
struck by a 2003 Ford Blue Ribbon Taxi, driven by Marcus Adeyemo.
ANSWER:
154.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 153 not based on
personal knowledge, but upon information and belief.
Shortly after December 4, 2007, Rubio consulted with Respondent about
representing her in a personal injury claim against driver, Marcus Adeyemo and the Blue
Ribbon Taxi Company. Respondent agreed to represent Rubio for a contingency fee wherein
Respondent's fee would be one-third of any award Respondent obtained on behalf of Rubio.
ANSWER:
155.
On December 4, 2009, Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of
CookCounty entitled Marcella Rubio v. BlueRibbon Taxi Cab Company and Marcus Abeyedo,
case number 09M64569.
ANSWER:
52
156.
On January 7,2010, February 24, 2010, May 27, 2010 and September 2,2010,
the Court granted Respondent's request for alias summons to issue. As of May 1, 2014,
Respondent has failed to properly serve either defendant in case number 09M64569.
ANSWER:
156. Respondent admits that he has not been successful in serving the
defendants in case number 09M64569. Respondent denies the argumentative
language of paragraph 156 to the effect that he "failed to properly serve" the
defendants. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 156.
157.
On August 30, 2010, Respondent failed to appear in court on case number
09M64569 and the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. On September 2, 2010,
the Court vacated the dismissal order of August 30, 2010 and set the matter for status on
return of service for the date of October 12,2010.
ANSWER:
158.
answering, Respondent states that the court vacated the dismissal for want of
prosecution pursuant to his timely request that it do so.
On October 12, 2010, the Court struck case number 09M64569 from the call.
As of May 1, 2014, Respondent has made no further attempt to serve either defendant or
further litigate the matter. At no time prior to May1,2014, did the Respondent advise Rubio
that case number 09M64569 was stricken from the call.
ANSWER:
158. Further answering, Respondent states that the court struck case number
09M64569 from the case management call pursuant to Respondent's request
that it do so, in light of the difficulties he had experienced in serving the
defendants. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second of
paragraph 158. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third
sentence of paragraph 158 to the extent that they allege that his attempts to
contact Ms. Rubio between October 2010 and March 2013 were not successful.
Respondent denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 158.
53
159.
After October 12, 2010, Ms. Rubio spoke to Respondent on a number of
occasions, via telephone, to determine the status of case number 09M64569. Respondent
told Ms. Rubio he was having a difficult time serving the defendants as defendant, Marcus
Abeyedo, lived in a distant suburb. Respondent's statement that defendant Abeyedo's lived
in a distant suburb, making service difficult, was false and Respondent knew it was false as
Respondent listed defendant Abeyedo's address, for purposes of service, as 6826 North
Ridge, Chicago, IL.
ANSWER:
160.
of paragraph 159. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the third
sentence of paragraph 159. Further answering, Respondent states that he
described the defendant's address to Ms. Rubio as being in or near Skokie, IL.
Further answering, 6826 North Ridge, Chicago, IL is 5 miles from Skokie, IL,
and approximately 34 miles from Markham, IL, where Ms. Rubio's case was
pending.
Between late 2011 and March 18, 2013, Rubio made multiple, unsuccessful
attempts to contact Respondent at his law office via telephone. At no time between late 2011
and March 18,2013 did Rubio speak with Respondent
ANSWER:
161.
Respondent admits that Ms. Rubio made multiple attempts to contact him
between late 2011 and March 18, 2013. Respondent lacks sufficient
knowledge or recollection to admit or deny the allegations contained in the
second sentence, and therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies
On or about March 18, 2013, Rubio filed a request for investigation of
Respondent with the Commission. Shortly after submitting her request for investigation,
Rubio received a telephone call from Respondent advising her that he would continue to
work on her case. As of May 1, 2014, Respondent has made no further attempts to serve
54
either defendantin casenumber 09M64569 or resolveRubio's damages related to the motor
vehicle collision of December 4,2007.
ANSWER:
162.
of paragraph 161. Respondent admits the allegations of the third sentence to
the extent that they allege that he has not yet effected service of the defendants
in case number 09 M64569, but further answering, he affirmatively states that
he is presently undertaking a search for further information that will assist
him in effecting service. Respondent denies any remaining allegations of
paragraph 161.
a.
in representing a client, Marcella Rubio, by conduct
including failing to effect service on defendants in the
personal injury matter or resolve damages from the
matter, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of
b.
status of the matter and promptly comply with requests
for information, by conduct including failing to advise
Ms. Rubio about the status of the personal injury matter,
in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of
c.
misrepresentation, by conduct including Respondent's
misrepresentation regarding the address of a defendant
and that the personal injury matter was ongoing, in
violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of
d.
justice, by conduct including failing to act diligently in
serving defendants in the personal injury matter, in
55
violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of
ANSWER:
RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231
1.
Respondent is admitted to practice before the General and Trial Bars of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Other than that, he has never
been admitted to practice law before any other state court, federal court, or administrative
agency.
2.
Respondent was issued an Illinois real estate broker's license, no. 475051566,
on March 17, 1960. That license expired as of January 31, 1994. Further answering,
Respondent states that he at one time had an insurance producer's license, as well as a
securities dealer's license. However, neither of those licenses has been active for some time,
and Respondent is not currently in possession of information relating to them. Furthermore,
a diligent search by Respondent's counsel on the websites of the Illinois Department of
Insurance and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority did not result in any information
concerning the licenses issued to Respondent by those agencies or their predecessors.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Preston Harris, Respondent
BY:
James A. Doppke, Jr.
Robinson Law Group, LLC
James A. Doppke, Jr.
One of his attorneys
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 676-9878
jdoppke(5)robinsonlawillinois.com
56

obtained on behalfof Ms.Williams. Respondent requested that Ms

Transcription

Similar documents

here - The Scott Law Group PS

2Jj-07--10 . -.\ In the matter of produced `The Daily Samakal` in which

The Argumentative Essay

Survey Solutions with a Human Touch

State v. Winters, 102 Vt. 36, 145 A. 413

VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS and WEBCAM TECHNOLOGY

sigman, scott p

PDF format

Distilling eleven years of Board highlights